Battle casualties

[M.ilionario]

I've read somewhere in a lonely page that in most battles between Romans the casualties were very few - not exceeding 15% on each side - and that pila were almost useless when fighting other Romans.
Is this information true?
All I know is that they quote Caesar's writings and present detailed information about the matter....
What do you think?

[rkmvca1]

First of all, 15% casualties is not a low rate. Out of you and 5 of your friends, that would be about one of you dead or wounded. I doubt that you would consider that trivial. That said, I have also read that in many battles of antiquity, casualty rates were quite low -- until one side broke and ran. Then the slaughter began, and it could be gruesome.

Think about it -- killing people in hand to hand combat is a piecemeal, retail affair when they are similarly armed, and fighting back. Only the ones who are in contact with the enemy could do the killing, and it takes time, you get tired, and may well be the one getting killed or wounded yourself if you are not careful! So it's a slow business, and this stuff about heroes killing 5 men at a single blow is just that, stuff.

However, at some point, and never having been in combat myself I have not experienced it, one side, or actually a small fraction of one side, decides they are going to lose. And they turn around. [this, by the way, is why the Optio is stationed -behind- the Century in battle formation, to stop routs from happening. Routs start from the rear] And fear is tremendously contagious. The battle line "unzip"s as men's flanks are no longer protected, order crumbles, and then suddenly the killing changes from retail to wholesale as you no longer have to beat a man's defences to kill him, you can just stab him in the back. And this is the moment the Cavalry lives for: to be able to run down and slaughter fleeing enemies. By the way, this is shown very nicely in the computer game Rome: Total War.

Anyway, back to the original question about Romans vs Romans and low casulties: I don't know. But since this is a board, I can speculate. Romans were well armored, so they were probably less vulnerable to missile fire, and slingers and archers were usually auxiliaries anyway, so may (?? experten?) not have played too much of a role in Roman Civil wars. This may have included less vulnerability to Pila as well. A soldier's scutum may have been knocked out of action, but with discipline he may have been able to rotate to the rear ranks for repair or replacement.

Also, the Roman army was generally known for -not- breaking and running, so it is possible that Roman Armies just ground on each other all day with low casualties. Sometimes. However, I have read of fearsome casualties in the Roman Civil wars. See, for example, The Battle of Pharsalus where Pompey's side lost an estimated 18,000 out of 60,000. Anyway I have rambled on quote long enough, perhaps someone who knows what they are talking about should take over.

rkmvca/rich klein

[M.ilionario]

Thanks for the reply, btw I thought that the front lines were the first to rout, but your version makes far more sense - a man won't turn his back on his foe just because he's afraid....it would only mean he would die sooner, he needs to see his friends routing in order to understand that he has two choices: stay and die alone or try to rout, in any case a front line router is a dead man......

[Felix]

There is an important consideration in civil wars that alters the casualty lists: switching sides. There are two kinds of civil wars, those which are about politics within the existing system, and those about ideas/identity. The former type include most Roman wars, where the issue was about who was to be dictator or emperor, also the Sengoku period in Japan (who was to be shogun), or the Wars of the Roses (who was to be king of England). The other type include the American Civil War and some of the religious conflicts associated with the Reformation.

In the former sort of civil war, it is not uncommon for people to change sides, since no overriding ideological issue exists; and it was possible for prisoners to join their captors in the victorious army. Enlistment of the defeated was known in ancient times. Caesar was famous for his clemency to defeated Roman enemies, often with the result that they became part of his forces. If he had killed all of his prisoners, they might have resisted being captured more fiercely, and they couldn't have increased his own strength.

[rkmvca1]

^ a very good point. All told there were not that many Catos in Roman Civil Wars.

rkmvca/rich klein

[Tarbicus]

In the former sort of civil war, it is not uncommon for people to change sides, since no overriding ideological issue exists; and it was possible for prisoners to join their captors in the victorious army. Enlistment of the defeated was known in ancient times. Caesar was famous for his clemency to defeated Roman enemies, often with the result that they became part of his forces. If he had killed all of his prisoners, they might have resisted being captured more fiercely, and they couldn't have increased his own strength.

I think that probably ignores the innate sense of honour that Romans had, as a cultural trait. If Caesar had offered clemency but the defeated legionaries refused it is quite likely they would have been massacred. However, they would have had to swear upon their honour, and suffer all manner of unspeakable heavenly punishment should they break their oath, to follow Caesar. Lord knows what would have happened to their standards! At least this way they could retain their dignity and remain under them.

This doesn't mean they switched sides for political reasons, or because they were morally fickle (and I use that phrase deliberately) in any way. Self-preservation would definitely play a part, but I think you're applying more modern traits to a deeply religious, superstitious and honour-bound ancient sub-culture that saw individuals far more willing to die than lose face or be shamed than usually attributed to them.

For an added example of the Roman "mindset", check out these descriptions of three successive generations of Roman generals from a single family who are reputed to have performed acts of devotio:
[url:103425wz]http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0814927.html[/url]
[url:103425wz]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publius_Decius_Mus_%28340_BC%29[/url]

[Felix]

I hope I am not making the mistake of applying modern ethics to this situation; I was not trying to make an ethical statement at all. The switching of sides is, as I understand it, a function of the type of civil war. These are conflicts about who is in the driver's seat, and aside from personal oaths, generally lack any moral dimension at all (unless one contestant is noticeably more obnoxious than the rest). More ideological/geographic/ethnic civil wars are often characterized by great violence, culminating in genocidal slaughters like the one in Rwanda.

In getting people to switch sides, my limited knowledge of suggests that it is important for the winner to find a way for this to be done honorably. This may include thoughts such as: "you have done everything possible", "you were let down by your leader / put in an impossible situation" more than threats of dire violence. A defeated force could be dealt with in a number of ways; massacre is one, but enslavement was the typical solution in ancient times (more profitable!), perhaps disarmament and scattering the people.